Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Nero AAC page removed from nero.com (Read 17750 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

I was converting some flac to m4a to put on a portable media player the other day and I discovered the Nero AAC tagging tool, neroAacTag, which I found to be quite exactly what I wanted.

I noticed the docs were kindof weak so I started documenting which mp4 blocks were editable by the tool on the HA Wiki/Nero AAC page, and the very next day the whole Nero AAC download page disappears from nero.com. It is also removed from the "Technologies" list in the About Nero section. How very strange. :/

So maybe it is done. Glad I found it one day before.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #1 –
They took it off once already, only to update/change the page. Let's see, if it's gone thanks Nero for what they did but it has been replaced by newer/better encoders.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #2 –
With only a couple days worth of experience with it, I really liked it. Each tool did one thing and did it well. Completely stand-alone without a huge list of dependencies, easy to script with, and it seemed to produce, in my opinion, higher quality audio than avconv, which I was using before. On Linux at least, I don't know what is easier to use than this.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #3 –
Apple and Nero always seem to perform the best on listening tests, so if you can't use Apple due to being on Linux, Nero should be more than adequate.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Apple and Nero always seem to perform the best on listening tests, so if you can't use Apple due to being on Linux, Nero should be more than adequate.
No. Currently Nero only seems to beat FAAC.
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Apple and Nero always seem to perform the best on listening tests, so if you can't use Apple due to being on Linux, Nero should be more than adequate.


On Linux a libfdk_aac based encoder should be available. For example by compiling your own ffmpeg.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #6 –
Well, alright. I've looked into fdk_aac and it's not so hard to get going as I expected

I've created a page on the HA Wiki about the Fraunhofer FDK AAC encoding library and the options I've found for using it.

The fdkaac front-end by nu774 is very nice and does seem like the best alternative to neroAacEnc and neroAacTag. I like the simplicity of these tools over something like ffmpeg or avconv.
fdkaac doesn't support cover art like neroAacTag did, but I suppose I can still use the Nero tagger.

Thanks.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
No. Currently Nero only seems to beat FAAC.


That test is at 96 kbps, which AFAIK is too low for AAC to achieve transparency, anyway. Didn't Nero compare favourably to Apple in older tests at bitrates > 96? I recall a graph where Nero was a little behind at 128 and 160, but still ahead of faac and even LAME. Of course a listening test doesn't do much good if all the encoders are using bitrates high enough to achieve transparency, but if two encoders can achieve transparency at approximately the same bitrate, then it seems reasonable to call them comparable.

@ Garf

Have there been any recent tests to show how it compares to the commercial encoders? I know faac always seemed to come in last, but I don't recall seeing any tests where recent FFmpeg versions were included.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Quote from: Kohlrabi on
No. Currently Nero only seems to beat FAAC.


That test is at 96 kbps, which AFAIK is too low for AAC to achieve transparency, anyway. Didn't Nero compare favourably to Apple in older tests at bitrates > 96? I recall a graph where Nero was a little behind at 128 and 160, but still ahead of faac and even LAME. Of course a listening test doesn't do much good if all the encoders are using bitrates high enough to achieve transparency, but if two encoders can achieve transparency at approximately the same bitrate, then it seems reasonable to call them comparable.

@ Garf

Have there been any recent tests to show how it compares to the commercial encoders? I know faac always seemed to come in last, but I don't recall seeing any tests where recent FFmpeg versions were included.


Since you find AAC not transparent at 96Kbps you should take the 96Kbps listening test that is busy taking place at the moment:
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=106354

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
That test is at 96 kbps, which AFAIK is too low for AAC to achieve transparency, anyway.


Even if that were true (non-obvious), are you suggesting people compare AAC encoders at a bitrate where they can't tell them apart from the original? You understand that such a test cannot have a meaningful result, right?

Quote
Didn't Nero compare favourably to Apple in older tests at bitrates > 96?


Older tests, quite possibly. But the core of Nero's encoder hasn't been worked on for years, the changelog seems to have 2008 as the last year with relevant changes.

Quote
Have there been any recent tests to show how it compares to the commercial encoders? I know faac always seemed to come in last, but I don't recall seeing any tests where recent FFmpeg versions were included.


This is a confused question. FFmpeg can contain at least 3 completely different AAC encoders: an internal one, libfaac, and libfdk_aac.

I don't think there's been a large-scale test where libfdk_aac was involved.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Garf on
Even if that were true (non-obvious), are you suggesting people compare AAC encoders at a bitrate where they can't tell them apart from the original? You understand that such a test cannot have a meaningful result, right?


That was exactly my point. Kohlrabi linked IgorC's 2011 96 kbps ABC/HR test, which he used to compare various AAC encoders. It would only have made sense to use 96 kbps if transparency was not guaranteed at that bitrate, or the test would have been useless, and indeed, the fact that no encoder reached a score of 5.0 demonstrates that none of them achieved transparency on the samples in question. Does one listening test prove that 96 kbps is incapable of achieving transparency on every possible sample? No, but it does show that 96 kbps isn't always enough to achieve transparency, even on the best encoders included in this particular test.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Aleron Ives on
That test is at 96 kbps, which AFAIK is too low for AAC to achieve transparency, anyway.

96 kbps isn't too low for LC-AAC. LC-AAC was designed to work quite good at 96 kbps (and without resampling to 32 kHz). Good AAC encoders handle frequencies up to 16 kHz.
And actual real bitrate was ~100 kbps on that test. Plus it was unconstrained VBR test. Momentary bitrate can go considerably higher.

So, 96 kbps is far from being "very low" for modern AAC encoders. And it's not even that "low". 

Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Didn't Nero compare favourably to Apple in older tests at bitrates > 96?

Yes, it ... did.
But after 1.0.7.0 release main developers have quitted Nero. After that moment the main scope was centred on tuning HE-AAC v1 and v2.
Quality of LC-AAC was slowly deteriorating with each new version since then (1.1,1.3...). And 1.5.1 was a last release  that has the worst deterioration for LC encoder as well.
You can find 1.0.7.0 on internet and compare it to the latest Nero version.

Quote from: Aleron Ives on
I recall a graph where Nero was a little behind at 128 and 160, but still ahead of faac and even LAME.

It should be this http://d.hatena.ne.jp/kamedo2/20111029/1319840519

Quote from: Aleron Ives on
Of course a listening test doesn't do much good if all the encoders are using bitrates high enough to achieve transparency, but if two encoders can achieve transparency at approximately the same bitrate, then it seems reasonable to call them comparable.

Apple AAC was very good at 96 kbps. Looking at that this encoder should be (and is) transparent for most people at 128 kbps.
The same can't be told for Nero.

Quote from: Aleron Ives on
That was exactly my point. Kohlrabi linked IgorC's 2011 96 kbps ABC/HR test, which he used to compare various AAC encoders. It would only have made sense to use 96 kbps if transparency was not guaranteed at that bitrate, or the test would have been useless, and indeed, the fact that no encoder reached a score of 5.0 demonstrates that none of them achieved transparency on the samples in question. Does one listening test prove that 96 kbps is incapable of achieving transparency on every possible sample? No, but it does show that 96 kbps isn't always enough to achieve transparency, even on the best encoders included in this particular test.

There were a lot of people who haven't submit their results because it was all 5.0. Considering that fact the final average score would be somewhat higher. 4.5 and a bit higher too.
Second, it's a bit extreme to think that a transparency is achieved only  with absolute 5.0. The encoder is considered transparent if its average score is at least 4.7-4.8 and it won't fall badly on some very difficult samples.

Yes, Nero was a good AAC encoder. But here the word is ... was.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #12 –
The page for Nero AAC has re-appeared on nero.com.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #13 –
Still the same old version though. So, I'm guessing it's still dead in the water, unless they're planning new development.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #14 –
Hmm... LAME or EAC goes forever without updates, and people say "don't worry, it's stable, nothing wrong with the last version, it doesn't have to be updated every month" ... but for some reason, Nero AAC is "dead in the water"? Just because its performance is a smidge below that of Quicktime and FhG? It's still miles above faac.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #15 –
Quote from: mjb2006 on
Hmm... LAME or EAC goes forever without updates, and people say "don't worry, it's stable, nothing wrong with the last version, it doesn't have to be updated every month" ... but for some reason, Nero AAC is "dead in the water"? Just because its performance is a smidge below that of Quicktime and FhG? It's still miles above faac.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #16 –
It's not just the length of time since the update,  but the progress other AAC encoders have made relative to Nero. While LAME hasn't had significant updates, no other MP3 encoders have been surpassing it either.

I haven't done enough CD ripping in the past 5 or 7 years to comment on how EAC is doing vs. the "state of the art" of CD ripping.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #17 –
Don't expect any Nero AAC updates, it was not on the prio list of Nero and the people who were once developing it are no longer with the company.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #18 –
Ah  I had forgot about Nero getting rid of the dev team... well, that's probably the reason above all else to declare it dead.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #19 –
Quote from: slks on
Ah  I had forgot about Nero getting rid of the dev team... well, that's probably the reason above all else to declare it dead.


When did they do that? And do you know anyone aside form Ivan Dimkovic who was on the team?

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #21 –
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Goran and Menno. They left long time ago, so did Ivan.


Is Menno the same from FAAC?
Are any AAC codecs in development aside from Fraunhofer? Do any of these people work for Faunhofer?
Wonder what they're up to now?

Too bad Nero won't release the source code of their encoder if they're not developing it.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #23 –
Quote from: lvqcl on
Quote from: bp0 on
Too bad Nero won't release the source code of their encoder if they're not developing it.
Why?

Do you mean why would they? I guess they don't have any strong reason to, but maybe they could continue to use an encoder that is being developed as an open source project.
Why would it be good? Because it was a good encoder and maybe development could continue by others, it could be enhanced, or ported to other platoforms, or because it would be nice to see how it worked, etc.
All of the reason's that otherwise abandoned software should be open-sourced.

Nero AAC page removed from nero.com

Reply #24 –
Quote from: bp0 on
Quote from: Sebastian Mares on
Goran and Menno. They left long time ago, so did Ivan.


Is Menno the same from FAAC?
Are any AAC codecs in development aside from Fraunhofer? Do any of these people work for Faunhofer?
Wonder what they're up to now?

Too bad Nero won't release the source code of their encoder if they're not developing it.


Yep, same Menno. ^^ Goran works for FhG, Menno was not working in the audio "area" last time we had contact.